No abstract

No abstract

Objective:To assess the effectiveness of integrative weaning index (IWI) as a predictor of weaning success.Materials and Methods:This is a prospective randomized controlled observer-blinded study and carried out on 120 patients of both sexes; patients who received mechanical ventilation for more than 24 h and met defined criteria for a weaning trial, underwent a 2-h spontaneous breathing trial with either IWI plus routine criteria of weaning (Group I n = 60) or routine criteria of weaning alone (control group) (Group C n = 60), in Group C the IWI was measured retrospective as it is not used in weaning decision. Those tolerated the trial would be immediately extubated. The primary outcome measure was the ability to maintain spontaneous, unassisted breathing for more than 48 h after extubation. Secondary outcome measures were the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, and length of hospital stay.Results:The mean duration (hours) of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay (days) were significantly shorter in the Group I where the IWI was used (83.6 ± 34.3 vs. 97.49 ± 47.2 h, P = 0.002 and 5.5 ± 1.6 vs. 7.12 ± 2.3 days, P = 0.03, respectively). Weaning success rate was significantly higher in the Group I (53 vs. 34, P = 0.0001) while weaning failure rate was significantly lower in the Group I C (7 vs. 26, P = 0.0001).Conclusion:IWI is a strong predictor of both successful and failed weaning.

Aims:The aim was to assess the effectiveness of adding either dexamethasone or midazolam in comparison with epinephrine addition to 0.5% bupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block.Settings and Design:This is a prospective randomized controlled observer-blinded study.Subjects and Methods:This study was carried out in Tanta University Hospital on 60 patients of both sexes; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical Status I and II, age range from 18 to 45 years undergo elective surgery to upper limb. All patients were anesthetized with ultrasound guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block and randomly divided into three groups (each group 20 patients) Group E (epinephrine): 30 mL bupivacaine 0.5%with 1:200,000 epinephrine (5 μg/mL). Group D (dexamethasone): 30 mL bupivacaine 0.5% and dexamethasone 8 mg. Group M (midazolam): 30 ml bupivacaine 0.5% and midazolam 50 μg/kg. The primary outcome measures were onset and duration of sensory and motor block and time to first analgesic request.Statistical Analysis Used:The windows version of SPSS 11.0.1 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Data were presented in form of mean ± standard deviation multiple analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the three groups and Scheffe test was used after ANOVA. Power of significance P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.Results:Onset of sensory and motor block was significantly rapid (P < 0.05) in Groups D and M in comparison with Group E. Time of administration of rescue analgesic, duration of sensory and motor block showed significant increase (P < 0.05) in Group D in comparison with Group M which showed significant increase (P < 0.05) in comparison with Group E.Conclusions:In comparison with epinephrine and midazolam addition of dexamethasone to bupivacaine had rapid onset of block and longer time to first analgesic request with fewer side-effects.

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of a combination of etomidate-fentanyl versus dexmedetomidineketamine for Procedural Sedation and Analgesia (PSA) in patients undergoing upper endoscopy and biopsy. Patients and methods: This is a prospective randomized observer-blinded study. This study was carried out in Tanta university hospital on 100 patients of both sexes; ASA physical status I and II, age range from 20-60 years undergone upper endoscopy and biopsy. All patients were randomly divided into two groups (each group 50 patients) Group E (etofen): patients received an initial IV bolus dose of etomidate 0.15 mg/kg + fentanyl 1 mcg/kg IV, followed by etomidate infusion at 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/min. Group D (dexmedetomidine-ketamine): patients received an initial IV bolus dose of dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) +ketamine (1 mg/kg) followed by dexmedetomidine infusion (0.5-1 μg/kg/hr) with supplemental bolus doses of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) as needed. Sedation started and adjusted according to bispectral index level (BIS) range 60-80. Patients were then observed by an anesthesiologist who was blinded about sedative/analgesic received. The primary outcomes were onset, level and time of sedation and the secondary outcomes were recovery time, Length of recovery room (RR) stay (min), duration of hospital stay, VAS score, hemodynamic changes (HR, MBP, SPO 2 , RR), surgeon satisfaction, side effects, and patient satisfaction. Results: There was significant rapid onset of sedation in group E as compared to group D, Sedation level by BIS, showed significant increase (P<0.05) in group E in comparison with group D. Recovery time, Length of recovery room (RR) stay (min) and Length of hospital stay (hr) showed significant decrease (P<0.05) in group E in comparison with group D. Conclusion: The etomidate/fentanyl combination provides an effective and safe procedural sedation and analgesia for upper endoscope and biopsy. Etomidate/Fentanyl combination provides shorter sedation times and lighter sedation level (but enough for the procedure) when compared to the dexmedetomidine/ketamine combination. J o u rn al of A n e s th es ia & C li n ic a l Resea rc h